If you’re a woman, and wish to gain prominence in the eyes of a woman-hating audience, one of the most effective ways is to claim that you “chose life” after a difficult pregnancy. It’s obviously not as quick and easy as just being pretty while mindlessly parroting conservative rhetoric (à la Michelle Malkin), but it works wonders, and you can still tote it about after your looks fade. It can bag you a cover on In Touch magazine, or a Superbowl commercial, or any of the lifelong parade of gigs peddling the anti-choice line.

But let’s pretend. Say your masters finally get their way, and abortion, contraception and comprehensive sex-ed are all criminalized. Do you think you’re going to get a cookie now, when you suffer a placental abruption and carry on with the pregnancy anyway? Yeah right. We don’t expect bitches to do anything else. Choice? What choice? You’re not going to get accolades for “choosing life,” the decision was out of your hands.

Women conservative figureheads owe their very existence both to uppity women, and the backlash uppity women brew up. Without Roe v. Wade, we wouldn’t even know Sarah Palin. Oh sure, she could maybe squeak by with a governorship, but McCain’s team wouldn’t have looked twice at her. A woman veep? The base would riot, and not in a good way! They’d probably be more like this lady.

But I think that the acceptance of abortion can trace its foundations more to Rosie the Riveter than to Roe v. Wade, which was only the culmination of independent roots that finally blossomed into wholesale slaughter of innocent children. Governor Palin leaving her home to become governor of Alaska, and “choosing” to run for second-in-command of the most powerful nation on earth, is not a coup for the prolife cause, despite her personal convictions, but it is the death knell of the the biblical family as an American institution, and will only bring grief to those who are trying to hold together the shreds of that family vision in the midst of a perverse society.

Cognitive dissonance, thy name is anti-feminist women. I wonder what all these colluders think they’re doing. If their foes are defeated, they’re not going to magically sprout a wang as due reward for all their hard work. They’re going right back to the kitchen with the rest of us.

Well, maybe they think that their cause is unwinnable, so the gravy train will keep on chugging along? Think again. Behold the inevitable results when you declare that the government must make choices for women.

When Laura Pemberton chose to give birth at home in Florida, a Sheriff came to her house. Doctors believed that she was posing a risk to the life of her unborn child by having a vaginal birth after having had a previous c-section. The doctors were in the process of getting a court — order to force her to have a c-section. The sheriff took Ms. Pemberton into custody during active labor, strapped her legs together and forced her to go to a hospitalwhere an emergency hearing was taking place to determine the rights of her fetus. She was “allowed” to represent herself. A lawyer was appointed for the fetus. This woman, who vehemently opposes abortion, nevertheless believed in her right to evaluate medical risks and benefits to herself and her unborn child. She was forced to have the unnecessary surgery and when she later sued for violations of her civil rights, was told fetal rights outweighed hers.

This is happening here, right now, in this country where harlots supposedly have aborted baby barbecues and beat up a Jesus piñata afterward to get at his delicious tears.

When Pamela Rae Stewart, allegedly, didn’t get to the hospital quickly enough on the day of her delivery, she was arrested in California on the theory that she had violated the rights of her fetus.

Let’s take the case of Samantha Burton,who was ordered on bedrest and wanted to check out after her pregnancy had stabilized.

After she expressed a desire to leave, the hospital lawyers went to the Circuit Court of Leon County, which ordered Burton to be confined indefinitely to the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital and to submit, against her will, to any and all medical treatments, including bed rest and cesarean section delivery, that the “the unborn child’s attending physician,” deemed necessary to “preserve the life and health of Samantha Burton’s unborn child.” The Circuit Court even denied Burton the right to transfer to a different hospital.

Abrams said the court order was so broad, that even after an emergency cesarean section several days later showed the child to be stillborn – fundamentally making the ordered bed rest moot – they had to get an order to allow Burton to be legally released from the hospital. “The original court order had almost no limits,” Abrams said. “So we felt we had to go back to the circuit court to lift the order just to make sure she could be released.

I understand that you, the Sarah Palins and Pam Tebows of the world, did what you wanted to do and had your babies against the odds, and I understand how you could be proud.

But with all due respect, go jump off a balcony.

You are idiots to believe that your situation applies to all women, you are evil to want to force your choice onto other women regardless of their situation, and you are evil idiots to not see the damage you are causing. You are accomplices in the oppression, and eventual enslavement, of women. You deluded clowns think you’ll still live such a cushy life when every woman goes back to being a mere broodmare?

You get commercials and VP nominations. Most women get restraints and heartbreak. If you get your way, all women will have the latter. Including you.

Like this:

Related

9 Responses to “Without Choice, Your Choice of Life Means Nothing”

For starters, I support your pro-choice position to a degree. To me it is a matter of freedom of choice for people, not soon to be people. Please protect me from the tiatribe I’ll get from that statement.

We will never win the argument nor hopefully lose it however. Both sides are far too entrenched in their beliefs and postions to move. To me it is a hopeless debate.

So I will simply quietly support your position.

I would also suggest, politiely, that ranting and raving no matter how “right” you feel in your views will only put you in the opposite camp of Rita Crowell and equally as extreme.

There is no middle ground here other that Claire McCaskill’s view of “safe, legal and rare”, that I know of. I’ll stick to that and go tilt at other windmills.

“I would also suggest, politiely, that ranting and raving no matter how “right” you feel in your views will only put you in the opposite camp of Rita Crowell and equally as extreme.”

I can see that, but I don’t see the inherent value of being moderate, especially in arguments with extremists. I agree with Richard Dawkins, “…when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”

I believe your expression here was proportionate to the injustice involved and to your passion against it. Had you written a sober, “polite” objection to such anti-abortion zealotry, it would not have accurately reflected your outrage. This piece stands out as one of your best. Committed extremists cannot effectively be countered through lifeless and sterile rhetoric. If Mike Tyson were to hit me with a low blow, I’m not going to meekly protest. I’m going to put a bazooka to his temple and disintegrate his headpiece. Sort of like you did here.

Once again, you fail to understand the use of hyperbole against those whose hyperbolic pronouncements are doing real damage to the country. Your “nuclear weapons” suggestion or “burning Rita C at the stake” miss the point. Kaje merely suggested the offenders “jump off a balcony,” and she called them “idiots” and “evil.” No doubt, that is strong language, but as I said, zealots cannot be appeased with an invite to tea for some “polite” discussion.

While I don’t recommend the combative style for most occasions, it is sometimes necessary to show some “fight” for what one thinks is right. To stretch this topic way beyond the boundaries, I will ask you this: Because Americans are opposing terrorism with violence, does that make American actions the moral equivalent of terrorism?

“While I don’t recommend the combative style for most occasions, it is sometimes necessary to show some “fight” for what one thinks is right”, as Duane said. To a degree I concur. As to jumping off a balcony, I am not concerned, Kaje, however high it might be and the substance beneath it. Go roll in “s….” is OK if you want to use it.

BUT… Whenever I see a Rita C. Voices letter in the Globe, I know what is coming and frankly rarely read them. I never that I recall respond to them. She is simply “beyond the pale” in my view in her radical and combative support of the Pro life cause. No doubt she has ever right in the world to express such views. Just as I have to ignore them.

Get so extreme in your rhetoric that you lose any sembalance of reason or balance in your diatribe and you will probably lose any respect from the undecided or opponents. Sure you make your point, but usually only to those already in support of your position.